Member Info for knot

Looking at the trade data the end of day auction at 16:35:25 at 331p with 6.2m (c4% mkt cap) shares going through is the regular auction process after the close. The 16:41:07 at 331.04p with 3.6m (c2% mkt cap) shares could have been a second or additional post trading addition to the auction volumes. If you were trying to pickup a volume larger than the auction initially was going to offer, you would trade after the auction.

Borrowing a readit thread explanation : "The Post-Trading Session is from 4:40pm to 5:15pm." (expand the reply to first post) : https://www.reddit.com/r/UKInvesting/comments/lmiltr/how_to_see_after_hours_prices_for_uk_equities/

Could make for someone adding/closing between 4% and 5%. The shorts individually do not have positions this large so it would point towards someone adding a long or exchanging a long position.

Monday will be interesting, popcorn time indeed...munch...munch....

Biiiiiig chunky buyer/seller pairing. Monthly option expiry was (3rd friday of contract month) 21st no not regular option contract expiry.... more like vanilla swap position expiry, perhaps all of Caius closing ?

Watch for RNS announcement before the open on Monday of a holding change or end of Monday close to see the short position changes. I can't believe that nothing will be notified on either side.

Through the day position closures and new longs ahead of the wekeend uncertainty, the small tail towards the close with some short term longs closing out the gains on the day or week. The auction close would appear to be predominantly buyer motivated / instigated and so the 10m looks very interesting for Monday next week.

If we get a new long term holder adding a chunk that burning smell will get quite strong next week. Tuesdays close is going to be epic or a big nothing burger.

The show is getting close to an interval.... popcorn refill time.... munch...munch...

Asside from CBAM and debt hedging, for all those thinking about what the shorts might have been considering when applying the shorts to CBG, listen to the lyrics with some popcorn...munch...munch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WaV2x8GXj0

"when you refer to Estate Agent commissions that misses the point does it not?"

That was an example of a parallel situation where the estate agent is engaged and yet they may recieve a secret commission payment from the refferal to a solicitor. Previously these would not have been captured, however the Court of Appeal widened the net to include what may be unintended areas. That was just one reference to what I mean by the degree and breadth of unintended consequences, which will be a factor as to why the Supreme Court will row back the creation of a fiduciary from trust, rather than the fiduciary role creating that trust (another hint to another flaw in the ruling).

As per Liberty, the show at the moment would appear to be dominated by the FTSE and CBAM twins.

What a show, more popcorn...munch...munch...

"Hi knot, more interestingly have you bought any CBG recently,?" Yes, around 306, which brought my average up.

The days of leaks in the bar and gentlemans clubs is long gone. This one is down to the grouping of circumstances and the very odd misunderstanding as to the Court of Appeal ruling. Nobody in the media has covered it properly without bias, nor from a sound legal perspective. Some solicitor and legal firms have commented, some with bias and some with little bias. None of them have covered all of the aspects and more importantly from the perspective as to what the ruling means for future legals cases. The legal firms and solicitors potentially face issues surrounding estate agent commissions, so if they recognise that they are being careful for example. Those little unintended consequences.... they tend to bite in the most unexpected places...

The show is getting more and more interesting each day, back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

Quite amusing you ended up with more of the post directed at me rather than, say, maybe actually adding some logic that does not involve tin foil hats to your rationale as to why one of the three shorts was closing out, one has paused and a new one decided to breach 0.5%. Consistency, logic, explanation ? I long for a post of yours, which at least touches on a fact or something more plausible than accusing the UK Supreme Court of leaking to an American hedge fund (oh, that would require googling a fact as to who Squarepoint Ops LLC are). That said it does add to the general amusement of the show.... bought any CBG recently ?

Yay, more popcorn...munch...munch....

Liberty2 - yes, thinking about it one plausible aspect is they could have some of CBG debt and as an interim hedge a short on the shares could counter the effects of CBAM not going through. I would guess that they are hedging rather than suddenly jumping into a full on naked bearish short at this level. Either that or they completely misunderstood the aspect of the Treasury not being given permission. Your post came out while I was tapping away....

Back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

Winner winner chicken dinner... (google it)... We have a new participant with a burning desire.

Squarepoint Ops LLC have gone above 0.5% on the 21st and were likely the drivers for the drop from 333 to at the close 315. They could have been adding on the previous day, but the position was not above 0.5% so no reporting required. Makes for a curious addition for a short as they have added maybe two days and not necessarily pushed it down very far. The 20th opened around 313p. and today after the short additions we are at 312.8p today..... burn...burn...burn... seems to come to mind for some reason. That said it could be a play to keep CBG out of the FTSE250. Feels like this time round we will not get back into the 250 or an epic squeeze will flush some shorts out backed up with trackers. Added short for a net 0.2p drop.... hmmmmm.....

Source data direct from FCA : https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/data/short-positions-daily-update.xlsx

Fun times ahead for the interim show of the rollercoaster... get the popcorn out...munch...munch...

I did not past the first few words earlier....

"nothing has 'changed'" - Appart from for example the FCA actually intervening (and being given permission) in the Supreme Court on the side of the companies the FCA was origianlly seeking damages from.

The rest seems utter illogical nonsense that is clearly not thought through. "incredulous" indeed.

Back to the popcorn...munch...munch...

I prefer the Royal Bank of Schenanigans.....

"Yet the share price shows no signs of recovery" - lol.... utter nonsense.

Popcorn time... munch...munch...

So, within the Court of Appeal ruling, the court decided that it was the right path to get the lender to repay the commission and not to go after the dealers for what is actually the value of the bribe. Under the Bribery Act the proceeds of the bribe if not recovered to the principle in line with a different case laws (Keech/FHR) the state can reclaim them under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Recission does not nullify the proceeds of crime. This would require (Mr two tier otherwise) the CPS to then instigate the prosecution and reclaiming of the same value of the recission/bribe value (many £bn if you believe this scenario will be allowed to happen by the Supreme Court not overruling the CoA complete lack of foresight) which would result in almost every car dealership being closed down and the big manufacturers likely exiting the UK. This has a plausible clear legal path and it's not that uncertain (way more accurate than RBS forecast of £30bn). Just think about this, not just car finance, all half secret or secret commission based instances, solicitors, estate agents, insurance brokers, etc.. even Martin the wise one Lewis could have the CPS knocking on his door for some proceeds of crime recovery separately to the CoA blind intent.... unintended consequences on overdrive.... Would be a stupid way for Reeves to fill another self inflicted black hole in the budget, here is an RBS calculated £30bn, oh, no industry left and a lot of people waving pitchforks on bicycles ?

PPI did not have bribery, although with the CoA they now change that PPI to bribery, oh, and extra £30bn or so.

Reeves would appear to have the CPS lined up to recover over £100bn or more for the Treasury in proceeds of crime act prosecutions.

Politically this would likely destroy Labour and the UK financial markets. Not one newspaper has even touched this with a barge pole because it's either so toxic or they still have no idea about the unintended consequences.

Still think the Supreme Court is going to let the fiduciary and bribery slippery slope stand without overruling ?

Plevin.... sit back, relax and watch the show.... with a super size bucket of popcorn...munch...munch...

No change on the short positions. 1.1m volume on the day.... did a short close some out in the early part of trading or a short swap between shorts with the late selloff.... I liked the little kick near the close of the last few short term shorts closing out ahead of the weekend.... Will see after Mondays close.

Yes, the "Indicative" being the primary aspect. This does indeed set the stage for an interesting couple of weeks.

This is the daily updated index position for all shares : https://www.stockchallenge.co.uk/ftse.php

This is the schedule for 2025 FTSE review dates

https://www.lseg.com/content/dam/ftse-russell/en_us/documents/policy-documents/ftse-faq-document-uk-2025.pdf

Index Rebalance Market Capitalisation data cut-off : 4 March 2025

Notification of Index Membership Changes (after close) : 5 March 2025

Review Effective Date (open of) : 24 March 2025

Weekend popcorn...munch...munch...

I do wonder is Caius were closing out this morning, or maybe Walleye getting a black eye. Those steady linear patterns are programatic trades, which have a steady trade flow associated with them and from the direction someone was buying. When looking at NatWest, Lloyds and CBG together on a 1 month share trading performance perspective they are all within around 1.5% of each others, so in that sense all the interim moves look like noise with the longer term trend being followed.

Slide into the close, may well just be longs taking proffit for the week rather than shorts adding bearish positions. End of the day looks to be another positive close on the day, so that is looking good.

CBAM sale is getting a premium, so closure will remove uncertainty and potentially some short volumes that are maybe hedging the possibility of the sale not going through. If it fails to go through, it's still a growing proffitable business, it is not as if they would be taking on losses and liabilities. As per the trading update they are expecting it to close quite soon, in line with the original deal timing, so no red flags being waved around.

Might even see a little kick closer to the close as the smaller volume of short term shorts close out ahead of the weekend.

Another rollercaster week, which involved a lot of screaming to not really get anywhere.

The show goes on and so does the popcorn, munch...munch...

So we start the day with shorty piling in, only to be completely run over within half an hour and then short covering being triggered before a brief pause, some proffit taking and a small underlying longer term sell trickling through. Fluffed by the rapid rise the buying continued with Lloyds setting asside a smaller sum than expected and as a 10:1 proxy would imply that CBG has been more conservative as to the sum set asside. By 12:41 we started to potentially get into the uphoria zone and the shorts stepped back in, short term making a few pennies, longer term digging a bigger hole. End of the day CBG finished up, which gives Walleyes addition to their short a bit of context and a possible indication they are digging a hole after pausing the next day of the addition to the short (no change in position). The drop today may well be another addition to Walleye or just the general market trend overall (look at the chart comparing all the banks).

The other very interesting aspect in an article for the Telegraph makes me 100% sure that RBC actually have no clue as to the scale of the commission because they said even if the Supreme Court overruled the Court of Appeal the claim level would only half. That is so factually incorrect, it is quite laughable and I'm not quite sure if RBC realise how it makes them appear. To go from 100% payback (CoA - bribery) to only the value above 50% (Plevin) of the loan value or interest (which may be only around 10-20% in comparison) and think the liability only halves proves they have not actually understood the ruling, nor have any reliable data that they have calculated the figures from.

Another day on the rollercoaster, remember to scream on the rise and scream on the fall. Most important of all, don't spill the popcorn... munch...munch...

Before inspecting the inside of my eyelids..... Distracted with other stuff of life, I forgot to have a look at the short disclosure data...

Walleye added 0.1% to their short on the 18th so they were a significant factor in the drop that day, which looking at the dates they added to the position they seem to be defending a book position. Selling into a non story (Treasury no, FCA yes) and helping push the herd of the less informed with a few flushes along the way. Based on the dates they shorted they may be getting nervous because they did not add to the short at a higher price before the story. Between now and the court hearing in thoery there may be no significant news... appart from maybe the head of the FCA being fired or a few other possibilities. That said they now have 0.8% short and will be looking for sellers to buy from and the strategy will be to try and flush people out. The average of the short book price looks to be still sub 300p given the 0.5% at the sub 230p that was added so they appear to be sat on a loss at the moment. They have a purely short term view on this and may just be looking to exit without a massive hole in the book or running the price up 50-80p, which 0.8% is likely to do. The elastic is stretched...all squeezy...

The show has got a little more interesting for some popcorn in the morning....munch...munch...

Page 53 : "Many investors in convertible or exchangeable securities seek to hedge their exposure in the underlying equity securities at the time of acquisition of the convertible or exchangeable securities, often through short selling of the underlying equity securities or through similar transactions. Prospective investors in the Securities may look to sell Ordinary Shares in anticipation of taking a position in, or during the term of, the Securities. This could drive down the price of the Ordinary Shares. Since the Securities will mandatorily convert into Ordinary Shares upon the Trigger Event, the price of the Ordinary Shares may be more volatile if the Issuer is trending toward the Trigger Event. Any movement in the price of the Ordinary Shares could also impact the price of the Securities." Trigger event being Tier 1 going below 7%.

This may also explain that some of the shorts could have been hedging the perception of the conversion being triggered at some point, however as that possibility becomes less likely the short positions are reduced accordingly.

Within the £200m CoCo bond a clause also exists, where the conversion price is adjusted if a takeover bid appears and a conversion may then occur, so it seems like the bond may also be a type of poison pill from a takeover perspective while the share price is well below value. The adjustment price is based on the 10 days before and 10 days after a bid. This aspect would make me view a share buy back being more prefereable way to use any capital early.

In relation to the £200m funding that was raised in Nov 2023 it should be noted that £1.48bn of bids were placed for the £200m, so even in 2023 with the share price around 770p and the claims overhang, the debt was well covered. The conversion price is £6.65.

Within the issue in relation to buy back of shares they do not need permission as such : "without the consent of the Securityholders"

The impact of a share buyback would reduce the number of shares in issue and make the CoCo more valuable (larger poison pill) because the number of shares the CoCo would convert into is £200m and the £6.65 conversion price. To note as well the conversion is limited to a "Qualifying Event" and they can't just arbitrarily convert to shares.

In my mind, considering this bond was very likely a contingency option over the claims cases, post the court ruling it would make sense for this bond to be bought back at some point, possibly 2027.

Overall a dividend payout will happen and a share buy back while the price is below 665p low would seem highly likely as well because of the poison pill nature of the bonds and the buy back effect. Not all dividend, but a much higher share price either way on capital release.

Source : https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/uk/close_brothers/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=61&newsid=1736284

Late popcorn...munch...munch...

Given the approximate cash build well in excess of their statutory buffer levels and the very likely removal of the fiduciary they will have an excess of maybe £100-150m. They will not put all of that into a special dividend because of the shareholder base that they had before they stopped the dividends, so they will look to start the dividends at a sensible level. As to what they will do with the excess a share buyback is more likely, so you will end up with a share buyback and the restart of the dividends. I have not looked at the £200m CoCo bond they have (strike over 600p) in detail as to the implications of the buyback on the bond strike but thaqt is where 600p may play in. While the share price is below this level a buyback would potentially make more sense. It will be quite interesting how quickly after the Supreme Court rules that a decision is made about the capital.

The Supreme Court case is on the 1-3 April and cases tend to report a verdict on the 3rd day in some instances. Given the skeleton argument bundle will be presented beforehand and the judges will have a fair idea about the basis as to what is going to be presented so a verdict on the 3rd I would say is very likely or within a couple of weeks after the case. We are not going to be hanging around for months.

In the meantime, more popcorn... munch...munch...

I would tend to agree that Jefferies are very close to the mark on the relevance of the FCA being far more important than the Treasury. I do think that they have not necessarily considered the aspect that the FCA are actually a direct legal participant from the bribery aspect and I expect this to be touched on in the case. Blaming the lenders as an accessory, whilst ommiting to bring the FCA in as an accessory also. That is given the fact that the FCA wrote the handbook on apparent bribery the lenders committed. This is a very key aspect that is not directly mentioned.

At this point in time I'm very comfortable just sitting back and watching the show and learning more about the oddities and irrationality as to how a shallow understanding inherently amplifies uncertainty. Sure it's a rollercoaster ride along the way, that's what uncertainty does, but I know where it's heading. PE of 3.4, capital already allocated for the compensation (no post issue book build required), stable business, etc.

Buy or sell, it's your choice. I know where my popcorn is...munch...munch...

"its a swingers dream".... sometimes people read thing differently and may wonder what car keys in a bowl has to do with share dealing, lol. fun for the night asside from other hillarity and popcorn... munch...munch...

13 Feb 2025 16:27 : "I for the record will be holding and regretting my decision bitterly as I have for the last two decades."

Lloyds share price two decades ago as you said you bought two decades ago, look back and the share price is around 230p. Why say you bought two decades ago and then cry lies ?

What are you trying to achieve or state ?

Munch...MUNCH....MUNCH....munch...